Peri-implant bone loss in cement- and screw-retained prostheses: Systematic review and meta-analysis

被引:64
作者
de Brandao, Marcelo L. [1 ,2 ]
Vettore, Mario V. [3 ]
Vidigal Junior, Guaracilei M. [4 ]
机构
[1] INOVI, Implantol Dept, Vitoria, ES, Brazil
[2] ABO ES, Implantol Dept, Vitoria, ES, Brazil
[3] Univ Fed Rio de Janeiro, Inst Studies Publ Hlth, Rio De Janeiro, RJ, Brazil
[4] Univ Grande Rio UNIGRANRIO, Sch Dent, Dept Oral Implantol, Rio De Janeiro, RJ, Brazil
关键词
cement-retained prosthesis; meta-analysis; peri-implant bone loss; screw-retained prosthesis; systematic review; RADIOGRAPHIC EVALUATION; ABUTMENTS; LEVEL; RESTORATIONS; PUBLICATION; PLATFORM; DESIGNS; CROWNS; BIAS;
D O I
10.1111/jcpe.12041
中图分类号
R78 [口腔科学];
学科分类号
1003 ;
摘要
Aim The aim of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to assess and compare peri-implant marginal bone loss in cement- and screw-retained prostheses. Material and Methods Electronic database and manual searches were undertaken to identify trials, prospective or retrospective studies reporting on radiographic marginal bone loss around dental implants restored with cement- and/or screw-retained prostheses. Two reviewers independently conducted the article selection and data extraction. Random-effects models were used to obtain estimates of peri-implant marginal bone loss [mean, 95% confidence intervals (CI)]. Results Of the 1217 identified studies, nine finally met the inclusion criteria. Only two studies included both cement- and screw-retained prostheses, three assessed only screw-retained prostheses, and four evaluated only cement-retained prostheses. Pooled mean marginal bone loss was 0.53mm (CI 95%, 0.310.76mm) for cement-retained prostheses and 0.89mm (CI 95%, 0.451.33mm) for screw-retained prostheses. Conclusion There is no evidence to support differences in the marginal bone loss through indirect comparison between cement and screw-retained restorations.
引用
收藏
页码:287 / 295
页数:9
相关论文
共 36 条
[1]   Functional restoration of implants on the day of surgical placement in the fully edentulous mandible: A case series [J].
Aalam, AA ;
Nowzari, H ;
Krivitsky, A .
CLINICAL IMPLANT DENTISTRY AND RELATED RESEARCH, 2005, 7 (01) :10-16
[2]   The mucosal attachment at different abutments - An experimental study in dogs [J].
Abrahamsson, I ;
Berglundh, T ;
Glantz, PO ;
Lindhe, J .
JOURNAL OF CLINICAL PERIODONTOLOGY, 1998, 25 (09) :721-727
[3]   A 15-YEAR STUDY OF OSSEOINTEGRATED IMPLANTS IN THE TREATMENT OF THE EDENTULOUS JAW [J].
ADELL, R ;
LEKHOLM, U ;
ROCKLER, B ;
BRANEMARK, PI .
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF ORAL SURGERY, 1981, 10 (06) :387-416
[4]  
Albrektsson T, 1986, Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants, V1, P11
[5]  
[Anonymous], 2001, SYSTEMATIC REV HLTH, DOI DOI 10.1002/9780470693926
[6]  
[Anonymous], 2004, COCHRANE REV HDB 4 2
[7]  
Bae KH, 2008, INT J PERIODONT REST, V28, P137
[8]   OPERATING CHARACTERISTICS OF A BANK CORRELATION TEST FOR PUBLICATION BIAS [J].
BEGG, CB ;
MAZUMDAR, M .
BIOMETRICS, 1994, 50 (04) :1088-1101
[9]   Dimension of the periimplant mucosa - Biological width revisited [J].
Berglundh, T ;
Lindhe, J .
JOURNAL OF CLINICAL PERIODONTOLOGY, 1996, 23 (10) :971-973
[10]  
Bernardes SR, 2009, INT J ORAL MAX IMPL, V24, P781